Metformin improves glycemic variability in adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus: an open-label randomized control trial

Effectiveness and safety of glucose-lowering drugs as an adjunct to insulin therapy in Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes: a retrospective, observational study

AIM

To assess the real-world impact of glucose-lowering drugs (GLDs) as an adjunct to insulin in Chinese patients with type 1 diabetes (T1DM).

METHODS

This dual-center, observational, retrospective study included 121 T1DM patients receiving GLDs as adjuncts and 56 participants with insulin-only drugs as comparators. Glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), daily insulin dosage, fasting blood glucose (FBG), postprandial blood glucose (PBG), nocturnal blood glucose (NBG) and the difference in trough and peak blood glucose levels on the same day (Δ TP) were assessed at baseline and at the end of the study.

RESULTS

In total, HbA1c decreased by 1.14% in the GLD+insulin group (p < 0.0001) and 0.36% in the insulin-only group (p = 0.0423, mean adjusted difference, -0.09% [95% CI, -0.55 to 0.37]). The total daily insulin concentration was reduced by 7.34 U per day in the GLD+insulin group vs. 5.55 U per day in the insulin-only group (mean adjusted difference, -2.32 U [95% CI, -4.97 to 0.33]). In particular, among patients with fasting C-peptide levels < 17 pmol/L, the total daily insulin concentration was significantly reduced by 9.22 U vs. 5.09 U per day (mean adjusted difference, -3.84 [95% CI, -6.85-0.84]; p = 0.0129). There were no notable differences in the other glycemic indices between the two groups. A gradual downward trend in changes in glycemic outcomes was observed among patients treated with various combinations of metformin, acarbose, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor (DPP-4i). Similar reductions in the daily insulin dose were also detected in most of the GLD+insulin group in addition to the DPP-4i-only group. No severe hypoglycemia was induced by additional GLDs.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of additional GLDs tends to improve glycemic outcomes and reduce insulin requirements in patients with T1DM. These results indicate that the use of GLDs as an adjunctive therapy may have been an effective treatment strategy among adults with T1DM in China.

Exploring the clinical connections between epilepsy and diabetes mellitus: Promising therapeutic strategies utilizing agmatine and metformin

PURPOSE

Diabetes mellitus (DM) and epilepsy and the psychological and socio-economic implications that are associated with their treatments can be quite perplexing. Metformin is an antihyperglycemic medication that is used to treat type 2 DM. In addition, metformin elicits protective actions against multiple diseases, including neurodegeneration and epilepsy. Recent studies indicate that metformin alters the resident gut microbiota in favor of species producing agmatine, an arginine metabolite which, in addition to beneficially altering metabolic pathways, is a potent neuroprotectant and neuromodulant.

METHODS

We first examine the literature for epidemiological and clinical evidences linking DM and epilepsy. Next, basing our analyses on published literature, we propose the possible complementarity of agmatine and metformin in the treatment of DM and epilepsy.

RESULTS

Our analyses of the clinical data suggest a significant association between pathogeneses of epilepsy and DM. Further, both agmatine and metformin appear to be multimodal therapeutic agents and have robust antiepileptogenic and antidiabetic properties. Data from animal and clinical studies largely support the use of metformin/agmatine as a double-edged pharmacotherapeutic agent against DM and epilepsy, particularly in their concurrent pathological occurrences.

CONCLUSION

The present review explores the evidences and available data on possible uses of metformin/agmatine as pertinent antidiabetic and antiepileptic agents. Our hope is that this will stimulate further research on the therapeutic actions of these multimodal agents, particularly for subject-specific clinical outcomes.

The Association of Glycemic Control Medication Regimens and Preoperative Fructosamine Among Total Joint Artrhoplasty Patients

BACKGROUND

Although glycated hemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) has classically been used for glycemic control screening before surgery, fructosamine, a short-term glucose variability indicator, has been reported to be a more accurate predictor of postoperative periprosthetic joint infection among patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). Given the variability of diabetic medication management, this study aims to identify the associated effect of glycemic control medication regimen (GCMR) on the incidence rate and associated odds of abnormal preoperative fructosamine levels among diabetic primary total knee arthroplasty or total hip arthroplasty patients.

METHODS

Between 2017 and 2018, consecutive series of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty patients were identified, and the final cohort included only diabetic patients. All patients reported preoperative HbA1c and fructosamine levels. GCMR categories included insulin, metformin, and other. Independent risk of GCMR and abnormal fructosamine levels (>293 µmol/L) were identified using multivariable logistic regression, while controlling for preoperative baseline factors including HbA1C.

RESULTS

Among 420 patients, 15.7% (66/420) were diabetic, of whom 22.7% (15/66) reported an abnormal fructosamine level. Among patients requiring GCMR, 24.0% (18/75), 56.0% (42/75), and 77.7% (58/75) reported using insulin, other, and metformin, respectively. Multivariable logistic regressions demonstrated that insulin-dependent patients with DM reported a 1.71 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.096 to 30.213, P = 0.716) increased odds of abnormal fructosamine levels compared with nonactive GCMR patients, whereas patients managed with metformin and other glycemic control medications reported a protective 0.48 (95% CI, 0.418 to 5.407, P = 0.549) and 0.32 (95% CI, 0.216 to 4.508, P = 0.393) decreased odds of abnormal fructosamine levels, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this study, insulin and other GCMR medications exhibited a trend for increased and decreased odds of having abnormal preoperative fructosamine levels while controlling for baseline HbA1c level compared with patients with DM without active GCMR. This association may be explained by multifactorial short-term glucose variability in insulin users, indicating the continued need and optimization of short-term glycemic variations instead of HbA1c.

Effects of metformin on glycaemic variability in combination with insulin in overweight/obese patients with type 1 diabetes

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of overweight and obesity in type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM) individuals is increasing. Overweight people with T1DM may be insulin resistant. Glycaemic variability (GV) is an emerging measure of glycaemic control. The aim of this study is to investigate whether metformin, in adjunct to insulin, would have any favourable effect on GV.

METHODS

This was a multi-centre, open-label randomised crossover study. Twenty-four overweight/obese T1DM patients aged ⩾18 years old with HbA1c ⩾ 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) were recruited and randomised into two study arms. For first 6-week, one arm remained on standard of care (SOC), the other arm received metformin, adjunctive to SOC. After 2-week washout, patients crossed over and continued for another 6 weeks. Glycaemic variability, other glycaemic parameters and metabolic profile were monitored.

RESULTS

There were significant reduction in metformin group for GV: mean (0.18 ± 1.73 vs -0.95 ± 1.24, p = 0.014), %CV (-15.84 (18.92) vs -19.08 (24.53), p = 0.044), glycemic risk assessment of diabetes equation (-0.69 (3.83) vs -1.61 (3.61), p = 0.047), continuous overlapping net glycaemic action (0.25 ± 1.62 vs -0.85 ± 1.22, p = 0.013), J-index (-0.75 (21.91) vs -7.11 (13.86), p = 0.034), time in range (1.13 ± 14.12% vs 10.83 ± 15.47%, p = 0.032); changes of systolic blood pressure (2.78 ± 11.19 mmHg vs -4.30 ± 9.81 mmHg, p = 0.027) and total daily dose (TDD) insulin (0.0 (3.33) units vs -2.17 (11.45) units, p = 0.012). Hypoglycaemic episodes were not significant in between groups.

CONCLUSION

Metformin showed favourable effect on GV in overweight/obese T1DM patients and reduction in systolic blood pressure, TDD insulin, fasting venous glucose and fructosamine.

The Beneficial Effects of a Multispecies Probiotic Supplement on Glycaemic Control and Metabolic Profile in Adults with Type 1 Diabetes: A Randomised, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Pilot-Study

Objective

In this pilot-study, the effects of a multispecies probiotic supplement on glycaemic control and metabolic parameters in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1DM) were explored.

Material and Methods

A total of 50 T1DM patients were enrolled and randomly placed into a group receiving capsules containing multi-probiotic strains (Bifidobacterium longum, Lactobacterium bulagricumi, Streptococcus thermophilus) and insulin (probiotics group, n = 27) or a group receiving a placebo and insulin (placebo group, n = 23). All patients underwent continuous glucose monitoring at baseline and 12 weeks after intervention. The primary outcomes were determined by comparing factors such as changes in fasting blood glucose (FBG) and haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) between the groups.

Results

Probiotic supplementation significantly reduced FBG (-1.0 ± 4.7 vs 1.8 ± 4.7 mmol/L, p = 0.048), 30 min postprandial glucose (-0.5 ± 4.6 vs 1.9 ± 3.3 mmol/L, p = 0.0495), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.07 ± 0.45 vs 0.32 ± 0.78 mmol/L, p = 0.0413), compared with the placebo. Although not statistically significant, probiotic supplementation also lowered HbA1c levels by 0.49% (-5.33 mmol/mol, p = 0.310). Besides, no significant difference was observed in the continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) parameters between the two groups. Further subgroup analysis revealed a significant reduction in mean sensor glucose (MSG; -0.75 (-2.11, 0.48) mmol/L vs 1.51 (-0.37, 2.74) mmol/L, p = 0.010) and time above range (TAR; -5.47 (-20.1, 3.04)% vs 18.9 (-1.11, 35.6)%, p = 0.006), as well as an greater improvement in the time in range (TIR; 9.32 (-4.84, 16.6)% vs -19.9 (-31.4, 0.69)%, p = 0.005) in male patients than female patients in the probiotics group.

Conclusion

Multispecies probiotics exerted beneficial effects on fasting and postprandial glucose and lipid profiles in adult T1DM patients, especially for male patients and those with higher baseline FBG levels.

Observational assessments of the relationship of dietary and pharmacological treatment on continuous measures of dysglycemia over 24 hours in women with gestational diabetes

Objectives

Studies that use continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) to monitor women with gestational diabetes (GDM), highlight the importance of managing dysglycemia over a 24-hour period. However, the effect of current treatment methods on dysglycemia over 24-hrs are currently unknown. This study aimed to characterise CGM metrics over 24-hrs in women with GDM and the moderating effect of treatment strategy.

Methods

Retrospective analysis of CGM data from 128 women with GDM in antenatal diabetes clinics. CGM was measured for 7-days between 30-32 weeks gestation. Non-parametric tests were used to evaluate differences of CGM between periods of day (morning, afternoon, evening, and overnight) and between treatment methods (i.e., diet alone or diet+metformin). Exploratory analysis in a subgroup of 34 of participants was performed to investigate the association between self-reported macronutrient intake and glycaemic control.

Results

Glucose levels significantly differed during the day (i.e., morning to evening; P<0.001) and were significantly higher (i.e., mean blood glucose and area under the curve [AUC]) and more variable (i.e., SD and CV) than overnight glucose levels. Morning showed the highest amount of variability (CV; 8.4% vs 6.5%, P<0.001 and SD; 0.49 mmol/L vs 0.38 mmol/L, P<0.001). When comparing treatment methods, mean glucose (6.09 vs 5.65 mmol/L; P<0.001) and AUC (8760.8 vs 8115.1 mmol/L.hr; P<0.001) were significantly higher in diet+metformin compared to diet alone. Finally, the exploratory analysis revealed a favourable association between higher protein intake (+1SD or +92 kcal/day) and lower mean glucose (-0.91 mmol/L p, P=0.02) and total AUC (1209.6 mmol/L.h, P=0.021).

Conclusions

Glycemia varies considerably across a day, with morning glycemia demonstrating greatest variability. Additionally, our work supports that individuals assigned to diet+metformin have greater difficulty managing glycemia and results suggest that increased dietary protein may assist with management of dysglycemia. Future work is needed to investigate the benefit of increased protein intake on management of dysglycemia.

Glucose-Lowering Therapy beyond Insulin in Type 1 Diabetes: A Narrative Review on Existing Evidence from Randomized Controlled Trials and Clinical Perspective

Background: In Type 1 diabetes (T1D), according to the most recent guidelines, the everyday glucose-lowering treatment is still restricted to the use of subcutaneous insulin, while multiple therapeutic options exist for Type 2 diabetes (T2D). Methods: For this narrative review we unsystematically screened PubMed and Embase to identify clinical trials which investigated glucose-lowering agents as an adjunct to insulin treatment in people with T1D. Published studies up to March 2022 were included. We discuss the safety and efficacy in modifying cardiovascular risk factors for each drug, the current status of research, and provide a clinical perspective. Results: For several adjunct agents, in T1D, the scientific evidence demonstrates improvements in HbA1c, reductions in the risk of hypoglycemia, and achievements of lower insulin requirements, as well as positive effects on cardiovascular risk factors, such as blood lipids, blood pressure, and weight. As the prevalence of obesity, the major driver for double diabetes, is rising, weight and cardiovascular risk factor management is becoming increasingly important in people with T1D. Conclusions: Adjunct glucose-lowering agents, intended to be used in T2D, bear the potential to beneficially impact on cardiovascular risk factors when investigated in the T1D population and are suggested to be more extensively considered as potentially disease-modifying drugs in the future and should be investigated for hard cardiovascular endpoints.